US, Japanese Gaps Remain in TPP Market Access After Ministerial Meeting, Says USTR
The U.S. and Japan continue to battle over Japanese market access concessions in Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, following a meeting between U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman and Japan’s Minister of State for Economic and Fiscal Policy Akira Amari, said the Office of the USTR in an April 18 press release. The remaining gaps reflect “considerable differences,” said USTR. Despite publicly insisting on comprehensive tariff elimination, the U.S. is reportedly expected to permit Japan to keep tariffs on rice, wheat and likely sugar cane in the TPP (see 14041709).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
While President Barack Obama is expected to publicly unveil a “breakthrough” in an ongoing market access dispute with Japan in TPP negotiations while touring Asia this week, actual progress is unlikely, said advocacy group Public Citizen in an April 21 memo. Although the negotiations remain hindered by a persistent dispute over medicine patents, financial regulations, state-owned enterprises and labor and environmental standards (see 14041622), both sides would like to announce some movement, the group said. “There is enormous pressure for Obama and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to announce a breakthrough,” said the memo. “Months of non-stop U.S-Japan bilateral TPP negotiations and ministerial-level meetings have failed to overcome sensitive agricultural and auto market access issues.” The group also pointed to a letter that circulated last week in Congress, calling for Japan’s removal from the negotiations if it does not make sufficient concessions. Public Citizen did not provide more information on the congressional letter and did not immediately respond for comment.